The Fujifilm X-mount is a interchangeable lens mount designed by Fujifilm. The mount is used in the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and the Fujifilm X-E1 digital cameras. It is currently only compatible with FUJINON XF lenses, however there are plans to make an adaptor to allow compatibility with Leica M lenses and third-party options from Zeiss and Tamron have also been announced.

FUJIFILM announces X-Pro1 and X-E1 firmware updates to offer faster AF and the addition of a “Focus Peak Highlight” function

The upgrades will provide improved AF performance for all FUJINON XF lenses and, amongst other benefits, will add a ‘Focus Peak Highlight’ function for manual focusing.

FUJIFILM Corporation (President: Shigehiro Nakajima) today announces the release of two new firmware updates for the FUJIFILM X-Pro1 and X-E1 compact system cameras, one on 25th June and a further one on 23rd July. . . . read more

Rico's article also includes the handling of the Metabones Speed Booster adapter on a Fujifilm camera:

"The X-Pro1 is not a rangefinder camera. It’s a pure-bred autofocus camera and as such—despite its hybrid viewfinder—it is only marginally equipped to work in combination with manual focus lenses. Currently, the only tool that the X-Pro1 and X-E1 feature to assist with manual focusing is a magnified digital viewfinder. The camera also offers some kind of focus peaking when you magnify the viewfinder image: It will enhance contrasty edges, indicating that they are in-focus.

Unfortunately, there are a few further aspects that render the X-Pro1 and X-E1 not yet perfectly equipped for working with third-party lenses: When a lens is attached to the X-Pro1 via an adapter, Auto-ISO operates with a minimum shutter speed of 1/30 second—independently of the actual focal length that was set in the adapter menu. 1/30s may be too fast for many wide-angle lenses and too slow for most standard and telephoto lenses. The cameras also set the . . . read more

"The Fuji X-E1 may be the baby brother to Fuji's flagship X-Pro1, but in many ways is its equal. Most importantly, the two cameras share the same impressive 16.3-megapixel APS-C X-Trans CMOS sensor, which produces image quality superior to most APS-C-sensor-based digital SLRs, but in arguably more attractive camera body designs. The X-E1 is also significantly less expensive than its older sibling, while boasting many of the same features. We loved the X-E1's look, which marries the design of a classic rangefinder camera with a smart and sophisticated CSC. We wished the camera grip was larger and more comfortable; it's not a great camera to handhold over long periods of time, but if you're just going out for a day of street shooting, it should be fine. The Fuji X-E1's polycarbonate-and-magnesium build make it quite light and highly portable, especially when compared to the X-Pro1. The X-E1's shutter button, which has a nice old-school look to it (minus the film winder), unfortunately is mushy to press and doesn't feel very responsive.

"The Fujifilm X-E1 is the second of the company's mirrorless compact system cameras to use the X-mount and the 16 Megapixel X-Trans CMOS sensor debuted in the groundbreaking X-Pro 1. It's smaller and less expensive than the X-Pro 1 but lacks one of its key selling points - the hybid optical / electronic viewfinder. But in most other respects the X-E1 offers the same, and in some cases a better level of features and functions as the flagship model, making it a great buy for anyone who loved the X-Pro 1, but couldn't afford it.

Just after Adobe enhances its support for the Fujifilm X-Trans sensor based cameras with the updated Lightroom and ACR versions, comes DPreview's verdict on the X-E1. A very interesting read, even though parts of it comes from the previously published X-Pro1 review:

"Overall, we really enjoyed shooting with the Fujifilm X-E1, and I'm very pleased with the images I got out of it. The camera crashed on occasion (it wouldn't be a new X-series camera if it didn't have some bugs...), leaving buttons unresponsive, and focus and exposure sometimes delivered odd results, but powering off usually cleared the error.. . . read more

The X-Transians have gotten their first wide angle prime, and the reports keep pouring in. Here are 6 of the most memorable-almost religious experiences, to be found around the Interwebs:

First, we've got Ray from FujiXspot, who takes the 14mm Fujinon for a full workout on the streets of Philadelphia, and ends up with some decision dilemmas:"So, there's no doubt in my mind that the 14mm is an excellent lens in any respect that matters. My only hesitance is still based on a combination of price and wondering if I'll use it enough to justify it. The other lenses I have similar costs into are the Olympus 12 and 75. The 12 is probably my most-used lens, so no question there.". . . read more

This whole, 'moving from Dslr to the greener pastures of Compact System Cameras' issue has picked up a lot of steam lately, and as someone that sits firmly in between the two, I think its now worthy of its own Estiasis 'Moving from DSLT to CSC' tag. Roshan Vyas is one of the switches, and so far, seems happy with the choice:

"I mentioned earlier that I sold off my Nikon D7000 and three lenses last month. The main reason was size: Having traveled around Europe with the whole kit for a month, I didn't see myself carrying all of that weight on a trip again. And around San Francisco, I prefer my Fuji X100 for street photography. Even more, I didn't find myself being as deliberate with my photos with a DSLR compared to the more manual and sometimes slower X100. I just enjoyed the Fuji photos more, and it was nice to not end up editing hundreds of quickly shot burst photos. I also figured that if I ever actually wanted to use a DSLR for a . . . read more

Wow, his must be the most serious case of X-Trans sensorophobia on the whole wide Interwebs. I still have a lot of respect for much of what he otherwise does, but when it comes to the X-Trans artifacting issue he clearly fails to see the sum of the image (heh): As a total, Fuji's sensor produces some gorgeous images, a fact that is stated in confessions and declarations by numerous pro, avid and generally accomplished photographers. I can point you to a zillion galleries and essays, but I choose just one for now and rest my case: Check out Dave Piper's gallery of images he got with the X-Pro1.

"Why bother with a problematic sensor? Or a company that can’t get its act together and just pay Adobe $250K a year or whatever to deliver exceptional results from ACR (if this is even possible, which I begin to doubt). This dog doesn’t hunt. Get a Sigma DP1/DP2/DP3 Merrill and enjoy real resolution with zero artifacts, totally clean, not even Bayer sensor demosaicing yuck. Or get a D600 or D800E system which isn’t that hugely different in size, but has a full frame sensor. I see no point in investing in a 2nd-tier system with a sensor that forces photographers to jump through hoops.". . . read more

"The Fujifilm X-E1 is a great addition to the company’s line of premium ILCs. Rangefinder diehards might miss the optical finder provided in the X-Pro1, but given that this isn’t a true rangefinder, we were perfectly okay with the X-E1’s EVF. It’s wonderfully crisp, bright, and gives you a good preview of the effects of setting changes. Its refresh rate could be quicker—you’ll notice a bit of stuttering on fast pans—and we wish it didn’t black out during bursts, but it’s among the best electronic finders out there. We’d say Sony’s OLED finders are the only ones that are appreciably better.. . . read more

'A good sample'? I think this is the second review of this lens that mentions it..what's up with the QC Fuji? The anonymous reviewer from Photozone shares some more insight into this issue:

"The Fujinon XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS may be the hottest reason to enter the Fuji system. It is amazingly sharp throughout the zoom and relevant aperture range. The amount of lateral CAs is generally quite low with the exception of 55mm @ f/4. The Fujinon is not without flaws, of course. Technically it suffers from a high barrel distortion at 18mm and the vignetting is a bit too high at max. aperture. However, these aspects are taken care of either by the camera itself or external RAW converters so you don't need to worry from a user perspective. The quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus) blur is pretty good for a standard zoom lens but it cannot rival the best prime lenses, of course.. . . read more

"In conclusion I am at the bottom of a steep learning curve but I was impressed at the performance of the X-E1 and want to explore the technique further. I realise I have to be aware of battery live so kept a battery on charge for quick change over. Initially I thought changing the battery would ruin the lapse as the camera would change position but I have decided that the camera sitting in a single stationary position isn’t interesting.

I think I have the post production side of things covered so the next step is to master the capture process and then it is time to find some interesting locations to do a proper testing. If you have explored this technique and have any tips please post away in the comments, all advice would be greatly . . . read more

"The X-Pro1 was 2012’s most fun new camera, but if you’re one of those people that thinks saving money is fun too, Fujifilm has the answer. By reducing the X-E1’s footprint and stripping out the novel—but unhelpful—hybrid viewfinder, the company has shaved $400 off the X-Pro1’s already-reduced price tag, all without sacrificing much of that model’s stellar performance.

For better or worse, our most enthusiastic praise is reserved not for the camera itself, but for the new kit lens. When the X-mount debuted, Fujifilm showed a commitment to high quality glass with its first three prime offerings, but many wondered if this performance would extend to a zoom lens. Now we know the answer. The X-E1’s 18-55mm kit lens is almost exactly as sharp as the XF 35mm f/1.4, which is really quite amazing for a zoom lens. We only wish the. . . read more

Some quick notes on user reactions: Apparently the XF 35mm firmware upgrade makes the lens noisier in operation, at least that's what many people report.
The X-E1 update does not result in as dramatic AF speed improvements as the earlier X-Pro1 update did. The camera DOES focus more accurately now, especially with the 18-55mm kit lens, but many users claim it does so at the expense of speed. And finally, one big issue Fujifilm did not resolve is the much wanted minimum shutter speed at auto Iso setting. Finally, Rico Pfirstinger has posted some nice tips about firmware upgrading on Fujifilm bodies: . . . read more

Dave Kai Piper is famous for his award winning model & portrait work and also known to work with only 'with natural light or an Orbis Ring Flash'. So, here's his wonderful X-Pro1 gallery, but at least the dozen or so images I've checked out so far are all shot with a Nikon D700., according to their EXIF. The disparity is compounded by the fact that each file name contains the words 'fuji-Xpro1'.
Since the same EXIF information is repeated in photo after photo, all shot on the same day, with a 85mm lens, at ISO 200 and 1/200 sec speed, it makes this probably a case of EXIF manipulation gone wrong, but it still begs the question: Why?

Update: Dave Piper sent us this message:

"Hello Sir, I can clear up this problem - All of the photos in the gallery had been placed onto a template in photoshop ( all of the photographs in my portfolio have been laid out this way

Christian Rudman reviewed the camera with the Fujinon 18-55mm kit lens. Unfortunately no full-sized image samples are provided with the review.

"This camera is yet another worthy installment in the X-Series of cameras that Fujifilm is producing. While my personal favorite remains the X-Pro1 for its innovative hybrid viewfinder combined with the interchangeable lens mount, this camera I hold in high regards and appreciate the cost savings of $700 (before they started discounting the X-Pro1). However, if you are pairing this camera with a legacy lens that would be focused manually and using the EVF, I would much prefer the X-E1 over the X-Pro1 for its much improved EVF. The pop-up flash is a nice touch, especially since the articulating arm allows you to bounce the flash vertically (I mentioned this in the First Impressions article on this camera).. . . read more

Everything in this article, besides the Fuji menu options of course, apply to every other camera body, be it a mirrrorless, or a Dslr, so its time to brush up (heh) on the cleaning skills:

"You can run a test to check whether dust has already settled on your sensor. Take an exposure of a blue or white sky, a bright wall, or a white piece of paper with a fully dimmed lens (= the highest f-stop possible). It’s best to use the camera’s automatic exposure bracketing feature (DRIVE button > AE BKT) and to manually set the lens to be out of focus—for the sky, set the focus for a short-range shot, and for a piece of paper, set the focus to infinity. If you then transfer your images to . . . read more

Martin provides many full frame image (with intact EXIF) samples along with his review.

"What I don't like about Fujifilm are their outrageous advertising claims. Sometimes I almost feel ashamed in my honor as an engineer :-) Firstly, there are the exaggeration in the indicated ISO values, cheating of the auto-exposure at high ISO settings and an Auto-ISO function that is constantly using too low ISO levels. With all these measures, Fuji apparently tries to improve noise performance test results.

Then there are untenable statements on the effects of an anti-alias filter. "... Sensor with a unique, highly randomized, . . . read more

"The Fuji X-E1 is a great successor to the X-Pro1. It keeps the highly tactile interface and unique 16 megapixels X-Trans CMOS sensor while improving in key areas. The more compact design is critical to success among a growing number of mirrorless cameras, plus the new ultra-high-resolution 2.4 megapixels EVF makes for an exceptional usability at eye-level. Image quality of the Fuji X-E1 is top-notch and exceeds all non-Fuji mirrorless cameras. Image noise is virtually inexistent until ISO 3200 and only slowly progresses without the usual added softness of noise-reduction. The output of this camera is completely usable for mid-size prints until ISO 25600. Sharpness is reasonably good with the Fuji Fujinon XF 18-55mm . . . read more

Another day, another pro photographer that dares to make the move to mirrorless gear. Here, Kent supplies a lot of photographs with his essay, and some X-Pro1 out of camera Jpeg vs Adobe Lightroom vs Silkypix raw files rendering comparisons. Also, kudos for not stripping the EXIFs out the photos.

"For me the decision to use the Fuji X-Pro1 on this shoot was definitely the right call. The Camera and the XF35mmF1.4 R were a perfect combination for the contemporary fashion look and feel we were after from the shoot. The image quality is superb and the cameras ability to focus accurately and quickly (in that order) allowed me to focus more on what was happening in front of the camera; the shots, than worrying if the shots were really in focus or not. And as I wrote in my X-Pro1 review on Street Fashion Sydney; this is a camera that enhances your photography instead of hindering it. Love it!. . . read more

Just remember that you can buy ALL currently available Fujinon primes + the X-E1 body and come up with less money than needed for the RX1 + viewfinder. While this is a quick review, it covers the essentials and is straight to the point. Initially there's was some readers' uproar about the usage of Lightroom converted RAW files by Steve (X-E1 raws+Lightroom=meh), but then he posted a couple of OOC Jpegs and everybody went "oooh!"

"The RX1 JPEGS are much sharper than the Fuji’s and have that more “robust” look to them as well. As for AF speed, the Sony and Fuji are about the same with AF speed after the new Fuji firmware update of the body and lens and both seem to lock on well in my low light tests (see video above). After shooting them both and handling them both and processing files from both, for me the winner is the Sony. I much prefer the feel, build and lens on the Sony RX1. I also enjoy almost limitless DR and amazing sharpness in my files. I love the shallow DOF and the “Zeiss Pop” from the RX1 and with the Gariz case on my personal camera it feels like a work of art.. . . read more

Fujifilm is not a manufacturer ashamed of its cameras high ISO capabilities, and it shows in this gallery, with pictures shot from ISO 200 up to ISO 3200. More statistics: Aperture range used is f/2.8 to f/5.6, all shots made in some film simulation mode, with both X-E1 and X-Pro1 being used. . . . read more

Set Yourselves free from Silkypix Crappy interface, and Lightroom's crappy rendering of Fujifilm RAF files, Patrick from Fuji Rumors (and others) reports: "Here is the email I received yesterday from Lionel of the Capture 1 team: Let’s see what the final version of C1 can get out of the X-Trans RAF files.

“Dear Beta Customer.
The beta of Capture One 7.0.2 has now ended. The terms of the beta will terminate on Monday Jan 14, 2013, at 14.00 CET, where Capture One 7.0.2 will be officially released. Thank you all very much for the participation in making Capture . . . read more

This is a Sans Mirror award, so, fans of mirrors and smoke please look elsewhere. Thom's nominees include the Sony NEX-6, the Panasonic GH3, and the Fujifilm X-E1:

"The E-M5's image quality is good enough that it basically replaced my Nikon D7000 (DX DSLR) as my hike-deep-into-the-backcountry camera. Why? Because I gave up nothing terribly significant in the sensor, but lost weight and size while gaining some exceptional small lenses (Note to Nikon: please get off your butt and make some more, and better, DX . . . read more

A user at the Serious Compacts forum has posted raw conversion samples from the latest Capture one beta that is supposed to relieve Fujifilm owners of X-Trans cameras from SilkyPix hell. The results are encouraging, but not in all cases:

"This evening I installed Phase One Capture One 7.0.2 beta and ran some test with Fuji X-Trans RAW files in comparison with Adobe's Lightroom 4.2. The test was simple, I grabbed an existing RAF file, imported and exported it in LR4.2 and . . . read more

Two things are amazing about this comparison: First, the amount of detail these small sensors can resolve nowadays. And second, how susceptible they have become to moire due to weak or absent antialiasing filter. There are full sized samples from each camera, a bit further down the page, one for a jpeg straight from the camera and another jpeg converted from Lightroom. Oh, there's another amazing thing, the amount of screw-ups Google translator can do on a simple page as this: . . . read more

After Diglloyd, Thom Hogan is the second one of the 'heavy guns' reviewers to discover serious image quality issues on the X-E1. But Their opinion is contrasted by the myriad of others, some of which swear by this camera, and many of them have the images to back up their claim. So, who's right and who's wrong? Are Diglloyd and Hogan just nitpicking, or is their point of reference too far removed from the X-E1 league? Thom has been surrounded by High-end Nikons for decades, and Diglloyd, well, some dub him a Leica fanatic.

Ultimately it is up to one's individual eye and taste to decide what's really good and worthy. Also of note, the image quality issues refer mostly to RAW files, a known fact since most of the top players (Adobe, Apple, Acdsee, Phase one, DXO) in the image processing field have proper-or any support for Fuji's raw format: . . . read more

Since there's no entry in my lexicon for 'camera of the year methodology' will refrain from a rant flood, and pass you on to the article, as the Pop Photo editors explain the why and how of the whole thing:

"2012 proved a truly great year for cameras. In the wake of 2011’s devastating tsunami in Japan and flooding in Thailand, camera manufacturers released nearly two years’ worth of terrific models in 2012, all within a span of eight months.

But our Camera of the Year choice came down to just three real finalists—the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, the Nikon D800, . . . read more